In Hughes v. Moore, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in one state and then performed in another could be enforced by a court in the second state. The plaintiff, Mr. Hughes, argued that he should be able to enforce his contract against Mr. Moore even though it had been formed outside of the jurisdiction where they were both now located. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously for Mr. Hughes and held that contracts which are validly entered into under one state's laws can still be enforced by courts of other states if those contracts have already been partially or fully performed within their borders; this is known as "full faith and credit". This ruling established an important precedent regarding interstate commerce and contractual obligations across different jurisdictions throughout America today

In Hughes v. Moore, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced after one of them had died. The majority opinion held that it could not, as contracts are personal in nature and cannot survive death. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on the basis that there is no legal principle which prevents such an agreement from being enforced if both parties intended for it to remain valid even after one of their deaths. He argued that when a contract has been fully executed by both sides before either party dies, then its terms should still be binding upon the surviving party regardless of any change in circumstances due to death or otherwise. Furthermore, he noted that enforcing such agreements would help ensure fairness and justice since they were made with full knowledge and consent prior to either person's passing away.